do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/841 of 27 May 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (OJ L 141, 28.5.2016)
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: North Korea, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, technology transfer, trade restriction








L_2016276EN.01001701.xml










13.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 276/17







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/841 of 27 May 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 141 of 28 May 2016
)


On page 43, point (11) of Article 1:
for:







‘(11)


the following article is inserted:’,





read:







‘(11)


Article 9c is replaced by the following:’.
Case T-726/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — VFP v Commission
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, newspaper, press, publishing, services of general interest








C_2016462EN.01003301.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/33





Action brought on 13 October 2016 — VFP v Commission
(Case T-726/16)
(2016/C 462/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vlaamse Federatie van Persverkopers VZW (VFP) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 3 June 2016, State Aid SA.42366 (2016/N) — Belgium — State compensations to bpost for the delivery of public services over 2016-2020 (1);










—


refer the case back to the Commission for further investigation and a new decision;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; and










—


take such other or further actions as justice may require.





Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the European Commission has violated its procedural rights by adopting the contested decision and not opening the formal procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.
In this single plea it is explained that, in so far as the Commission encountered serious difficulties as regards the possible compatibility of the compensation for the press distribution Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’) with the internal market, it was under the legal obligation to adopt a decision initiating the formal investigation procedure. This single plea is divided in four limbs. In particular, it is argued that the existence of the serious difficulties results from a body of consistent evidence concerning (i) the length of the preliminary examination and the special circumstances under which the aid was granted (first limb), (ii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the qualification of the distribution of recognised newspapers and periodicals as an SGEI is insufficient (second limb), (iii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the beneficiaries of the press distribution SGEI is incomplete (third limb) and (iv) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the distortion of competition and the development of trade is incomplete and insufficient (fourth limb).


(1)  OJ 2016, C 341, p. 5.
Case T-730/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, bank, debt, disclosure of information, monetary policy








C_2016462EN.01003501.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/35





Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB
(Case T-730/16)
(2016/C 462/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial Group SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Oliveira and S. Estima Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 31 August 2016 of the European Central Bank (ECB) adopted pursuant to Decision ECB/2004/3 not to provide full access to the ECB decision of 1 August 2014 which suspended Banco Espírito Santo S.A.’s Eurosystem monetary policy counterparty status and obliged it fully to repay its debt to the Eurosystem and refusing full access to related documents or decisions of ECB bodies;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to the requested information included in Governing Council decisions should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to the requested information included in Governing Council decisions should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the first, second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the first indent of Article 4(2) of Decision ECB/2004/3.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached Article 4(3) of Decision ECB/2004/3.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016374EN.01000101.xml










13.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/1





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 374/01)
On 10 October 2016, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Calls for proposals under the annual work programme for 2016 and the financing for the implementation of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector (Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 6380 amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1775)
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, EU programme, financial aid, invitation to tender, trans-European network, transport network








C_2016374EN.01000501.xml










13.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/5





Calls for proposals under the annual work programme for 2016 and the financing for the implementation of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector
(Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 6380 (1) amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1775)
(2016/C 374/05)
The European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, is hereby launching two calls for proposals in order to award grants in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the annual work programme for 2016 and the financing for the implementation of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector:






—


CEF-Transport-2016-AP-Cohesion envelope, with an indicative budget of EUR 250 million










—


CEF-Transport-2016-AP-General envelope, with an indicative budget of EUR 190 million




The deadline for the submission of proposals is 7 February 2017.
The complete texts of the calls for proposals are available on:
https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/apply-funding/2016-cef-transport-calls-proposals


(1)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 6380 of 7 October 2016 amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1775 establishing an Annual Work Programme for 2016 and the financing for the implementation of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector.
Case C-231/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 4(1) — Right of appeal against a decision taken by a national regulatory authority — Effective appeal mechanism — Decision of a national regulatory authority to continue to apply pending the outcome of the appeal — Temporal effects of a decision of a national court annulling a decision of a national regulatory authority — Possibility of annulling a decision of the national regulatory authority with retroactive effect — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, price regulations, regulation of telecommunications, right to justice, transmission network








C_2016462EN.01000501.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.
(Case C-231/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 4(1) - Right of appeal against a decision taken by a national regulatory authority - Effective appeal mechanism - Decision of a national regulatory authority to continue to apply pending the outcome of the appeal - Temporal effects of a decision of a national court annulling a decision of a national regulatory authority - Possibility of annulling a decision of the national regulatory authority with retroactive effect - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations))
(2016/C 462/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku

Respondent: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1), first subparagraph, first and third sentences, and second subparagraph, of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is to be interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing an appeal against a decision of the national regulatory authority must be able to annul that decision with retroactive effect if it finds that to be necessary in order to provide effective protection for the rights of the undertaking which has brought the appeal.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case C-294/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 1(1)(a) — Material scope — Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses — Article 3(1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of residence of the ‘applicant’ — Scope)
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: death, divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, marriage, married person, matrimonial law








C_2016462EN.01000602.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki
(Case C-294/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 1(1)(a) - Material scope - Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses - Article 3(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of residence of the ‘applicant’ - Scope))
(2016/C 462/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Edyta Mikołajczyk

Defendants: Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party following the death of one of the spouses falls within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003.










2.


The fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a person other than one of the spouses who brings an action for annulment of marriage may not rely on the grounds of jurisdiction set out in those provisions.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case T-725/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, appointment of staff, data protection, data transmission, personal data, right to information, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2016462EN.01003202.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/32





Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT
(Case T-725/16)
(2016/C 462/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Maria José Palos Caravina (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision refusing to grant her application to have communicated to her the decision to appoint Ms [X] to the Spanish translation team announced in October 2015 and, in so far as is necessary, the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint against that refusal;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
She considers that the announcement of a person’s ‘arrival’ in a service in no way fulfils the obligation to publish appointment decisions laid down in Article 25 and, in the absence of proper publication, each member of staff has the right to require that the appointment decision at issue be communicated. That right was, therefore, infringed in the present case by the Appointing Authority of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) in adopting the contested decision, namely, the decision of 23 December 2015 refusing to communicate to the applicant the decision in question.
The applicant also submits that the act of relying on Regulation No 45/2001, relating to the protection of personal data, against that right, stemming from Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is ineffective, because even if an appointment decision fell within the scope of the data protected by that regulation, Article 25 would have to be considered a lex specialis, conferring a right of access on third parties.
Case C-449/15: Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso, interveners: Saromar Gestioni Srl, Giulio Pistis
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, equal treatment, public property, restriction on competition, right of establishment, service concession, tendering, water resources








C_2016475EN.01001502.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/15





Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso, interveners: Saromar Gestioni Srl, Giulio Pistis
(Case C-449/15) (1)

(2016/C 475/24)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Case C-277/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — In vitro diagnostic medical devices — Directive 98/79/EC — Parallel imports — Translation by the importer of the information and instructions for use provided by the manufacturer — Supplementary conformity assessment procedure)
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, consumer information, diabetes, labelling, launching of a product, medical device, official language, product designation, translation








C_2016462EN.01000601.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/6





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-277/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - In vitro diagnostic medical devices - Directive 98/79/EC - Parallel imports - Translation by the importer of the information and instructions for use provided by the manufacturer - Supplementary conformity assessment procedure))
(2016/C 462/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Servoprax GmbH

Defendant: Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a parallel importer of a device for self-diagnosis for measuring blood sugar that bears a CE marking and that was the subject of a conformity assessment by a notified body to undertake a further assessment in order to certify the conformity of the labelling of that device and the instructions for its use as a result of their translation into the official language of the Member State of importation.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016374EN.01000201.xml










13.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 October 2016
(2016/C 374/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1020 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,50 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4399 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89990 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7318 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0906 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0290 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025 




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,05 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2974 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4970 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4039 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4553 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4598 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5494 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5621 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5240 




KRW


South Korean won


1 239,66 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8622 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4029 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5120 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 359,41 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6229 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,557 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,9576 




THB


Thai baht


39,397 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5256 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8564 




INR


Indian rupee


73,6100 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.